It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Norway Lights a Rocket? Don't Make me LOL, Questions For The Supposed De Bunkers

page: 24
67
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:03 AM

But the best part of the video is how it reminds me of a good Babylon 5 jump gate on acid.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:48 PM
A beautiful picture-true, A metaphysical explanation no solid ground, Russians failed missile attempt no solid ground. Take it for what it is it was just another thing that many can not explain nothing more nothing less.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:58 PM

Originally posted by ngchunter
Space has no temperature, only matter can have temperature. Matter in space has a temperature dictated by the thermal properties of that particular material.

When calculating the temperature in space, it is important to understand that most estimates must take into account the varied makeup of space. Outer space is the portion of the universe which is almost entirely empty. Unlike the small pockets of our universe which are inhabited by stars, planets, and other large sections of matter, outer space contains very, very little. Nonetheless, it is not entirely empty, and this is important to understand when considering the temperature in space.

The short answer is that the temperature in space is approximately 2.725 Kelvin. That means the universe is generally just shy of three degrees above absolute zero – the temperature at which molecules themselves stop moving. That’s almost -270 degrees Celsius, or -455 Fahrenheit.

www.wisegeek.com...

We are digressing though. Your assertion that a hot gas would not expand in either space or a less dense medium is a CROCK, and anyone who has had physics or thermodynamics and understands it will tell you the exact same thing. A rocket scientist would tell you the same thing.

The atmosphere is negligible as to be ignored where the failure occurred

So in other words you don't want to consider the density of the atmosphere where the "failure" occurred.

Even if it were in the complete vacuum of space, yes, it would still expand. That's why astronauts can't open their suits or they'll be "sucked" out.

The pressure of the gasses in the suit itself provides the force for the gas to expand. The vacuum literally does nothing, the gas does all the work.

Equal and opposite reaction genius. You have obviously NEVER had a physics class. Seriously, I don't even want to debate this with you, because it's THAT asinine. Just go email a professor of physics somewhere and ask them/

I'm sorry, where did I say it would not "expand"?

Uh, why the hell else would I be responding to you?

I said if this was really a gas released by the rocket, it would have expanded like you see in all the other rocket failure videos, and then you started attacking me for saying that.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:21 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ngchunter
Space has no temperature, only matter can have temperature. Matter in space has a temperature dictated by the thermal properties of that particular material.

When calculating the temperature in space, it is important to understand that most estimates must take into account the varied makeup of space.

Quote mining fail. Notice how even your own source talks about the varied makeup of "space" - what it is talking about isn't space itself, it's talking about the interstellar medium within space. Space has no temperature, only material in space has a temperature, and that temperature depends on the thermal properties of the material or element you're measuring, even your own source points this out. Your source takes an average of all the atoms between stars, excludes stars and planets, and calls that the "temperature of space." It's not space itself, it's just an averaging of a subset of atoms. Space itself is the vacuum, the atoms within it are part of something else, whether it be the interstellar or intergalactic medium, or the heliosphere, or even a body like an asteroid or planetoid.

We are digressing though. Your assertion that a hot gas would not expand in either space or a less dense medium is a CROCK,

Excuse me, stop putting words in my mouth. Where did I say it wouldn't expand? I asked you before to show me where I said that and you haven't shown me that quote (because it doesn't exist). I said it would follow the trajectory it has when it leaves the nozzle, which is exactly what it will do, but that doesn't mean it won't "expand," it means it won't billow. Of course it will expand outward as the trajectories of each gas particle are not perfectly parallel, but as I said, it will not billow against other gases because the atmosphere at that altitude is small enough to be ignored in the circumstances we're working with here, namely a dynamic pressure on an order of 10^-5 atmospheres. I never, ever said the words "it will not expand." Prove me wrong.

So in other words you don't want to consider the density of the atmosphere where the "failure" occurred.

I already did, I quoted it. Now you're ignoring it. You don't want to admit that 10^-5 atm is too low to matter; vacuum chambers in a lab on earth don't often do better than that:
10 Pa ~ 9x10^-5 atm
See? I considered it, it's IRRELEVANT.

Equal and opposite reaction genius.

Has nothing to do with the fact that the pressure within the suit provides the force for the gas to leave. The opposite reaction will be a thrust against the astronaut equal to the force of the escaping gas. Tell me where the vacuum is doing working in that equation.

You have obviously NEVER had a physics class.

Actually I've had plenty of physics classes in college. But I'm not the one who is arguing that the vacuum is doing work.

Seriously, I don't even want to debate this with you, because it's THAT asinine.

I'm sure you don't. See above.

Uh, why the hell else would I be responding to you?

LOL, you won't admit that you're putting words in my mouth so this is your comeback? I'm not going to speculate on why you're insisting on putting words in my mouth I never said, but it wouldn't be the first time a person online used a straw man technique. Some like to troll, others made a mistake, still others think it's a valid way to get a point across.

I said if this was really a gas released by the rocket, it would have expanded like you see in all the other rocket failure videos, and then you started attacking me for saying that.

You described it doing a lot of things it wouldn't do because you assumed the surrounding atmosphere was significant enough to matter. It's not. Perhaps you should read how I originally responded to you again and show me where I said it wouldn't expand.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by ngchunter]

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:05 PM
OK. But, what does this immense, glowing Blue smudge indicate?
| | | | | | | |
| | | |

[edit on 16-12-2009 by PhotonEffect]

[edit on 20-12-2009 by LASTofTheV8s]

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:31 PM

I'm not about to put so much effort into such a stupid argument that I'm going to respond to every little statement you made.

Fact: any higher-density gas placed into a lower-density medium will expand.

End of discussion, even you now admit as much.

Post videos of KNOWN rocket failures, you will see the gases expanding as soon as they come out of the rocket.

These? Not so much.

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:43 AM
I was bored, so I surfed around a bit. Looking at everything from rocket-launch foul-ups, to fireworks displays and products.

Nothing I found looked anything like the Norway show. At least, nothing that had to do with rockets. As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem that this type of effect is even possible to create with a rocket.

So, I kept looking at other possibilities. I found a few that were very similar to the Norway show. Unfortunately, the methods of their creation don't seem to be anything that would have been done on such a scale.

Here they are, just for the heck of it...

And this is how it was done...

[edit on 21-12-2009 by LASTofTheV8s]

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:43 AM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Fact: any higher-density gas placed into a lower-density medium will expand.

Quote me where I said it wouldn't expand. You can't because I didn't say it, you just keep putting those words in my mouth. The fact that you STILL cannot produce the quote you're inserting in my mouth speaks volumes.

Similar rocket failures produce similar spirals:
Is there expansion? Yes, but the general trajectory and shape of the outgassing is dictated by the direction of the nozzle, it does not billow or enter into some kind of "equilibrium" with surrounding gasses in any detectable way because there is no surrounding gas to speak of. You still refuse to admit this fact.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by ngchunter]

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:49 AM

Originally posted by LASTofTheV8s

OK. But, what does this immense, glowing Blue smudge indicate?

Rocket exhaust from the first two stages. In fact, the first stage's smudge you circled there looks EXACTLY like other pictures of launches taken from many miles away:
i48.tinypic.com...

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:03 AM
To correctly interpret the images you have to realize the rocket was moving AWAY from the observer at a slight angle off, and flying into sunrise that had not yet arrived in the Tromso area. We now know thanks to genuine research that other areas to the east were both overcast and had brighter skies, eliminating the chance of witnesses there.

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:00 PM
It's quite amazing that everyone here at ATS "knows" about a certain spiral in the sky over here, but noone in Norway has even heard of it. BS claims, nothing to write home about, just some dude with Photoshop and skills in rumor-making.

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:23 PM
There's a long and technical discussion of possible causes of the sky spiral at these links, which I highly recommend to serious enthusiasts. Weird-theory buffs probably should just avoid them:

Bulavas Whirling Though the Sky
www.armscontrolwonk.com...

We’ve had quite a discussion in the comments over Russia’s recent failed Bulava SLBM [www.armscontrolwonk.com...] test and the pretty spiral it made before crashing into the ocean.

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:33 PM

Thanks, I find that very interesting and will read. Seasons greetings BTW.

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
It's quite amazing that everyone here at ATS "knows" about a certain spiral in the sky over here, but noone in Norway has even heard of it. BS claims, nothing to write home about, just some dude with Photoshop and skills in rumor-making.

I'm confused.

Are you saying you live in Norway and haven't heard of this, and are assuming it never happened?

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:19 AM

Well, who are these hundreds of people who saw this, and why are all the pictures of it photoshopped using the twirl filter combined with some eurora and some funny clouds? A spiral in the sky.....

Rather look at Hessdalen in Sør-Trøndelag (about half way up Norway), now that's a phenomena.... Since the eighties people have spotted strange fireballs flying around in the area, much like the one you guys speak about. It's been photoed and filmed by several people, and it's real. Check out the link below....

www.hessdalen.org...

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Griffo515
1. SOUND- Rockets make a lot of it...why is there none in the VIDEOS?

2. DEBRIS- No reports of any being found

3. POSITION- Why are there no side on photographs and/or video of the lights? what, everyone filming and taking photos all across Norway just happened to be standing DIRECTLY in front of it to give it THIS spiral effect?...I don't think so.

4. VALIDITY- As always, can we rely on the official report given our governments (especially Russia's) track record?

5. PRECISION- How can a failed rocket launch be so PERFECT

6. ILLUMINATION- If it were a failed rocket...would it not explode like 90% of them? where is the ka-boom! where is the light given off in such an event!...there is none. Which brings us back to our 2nd question, where is the debris??

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Griffo515]

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Griffo515]

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Griffo515]

1. Look up, see that plane at 30 thousand feet? yep, you can't hear it.

2. 1 rocket over the ocean won't produce a lot of debris.

3. for the same reason you didn't hear sound. Relativity. The position of the rocket in the sky vs the geographical reality of norway. you can't see different angles when you are in this state of relativity to the object.

4. what have you got to refute the russians admission of failure? There are a great deal of people who agree with the assessment and in fact have shown other incidences where similar fates have occurred to rockets.

5. perfect? what's perfect about it? that it flew in a spiral until the fuel was spent?

6. what is there to explode if the fuel is burnt out? not all failures end with explosion. some fizzle out like a lot of duds. some are caught in the act of failure and the fins are remotely locked so the missile will do exactly what was shown and drop harmlessly into the sea.

I honestly don't know why people are clinging to this one. It's done, it's gone and there's nothing left to hash out unless you have something as a follow up? Something that doesn't include further speculation on the original event maybe?

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:03 PM
Looking at the video, it looks like a regular search light or powerful scanner with a rotating spiral gobo. You even see the blueish search cone. Projecting a rotating spiral in the sky is nothing. Take a look at the below link for some fun lighting art usingmodern 3D mapping technology:

vodpod.com...

And for the ones still in doubt, thinking it might be this or that, take a look at this youtube video....

[edit on 24/12/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 06:38 PM

You need to check out the thread where the guy uses trigonometry to estimate the size of the spiral itself.

IF you are saying that thing is 30,000 feet up, or any similar distance, you are also implying that the spiral itself is of monstrous size and therefore the "gases" spiraling would have to be traveling at enormous velocities.

posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 05:22 AM

Originally posted by fleabit
If the rocket is far enough away, you would not hear it. Just because you can see something even that is very loud, does not mean it's within earshot. For instance, if you are watching shuttle launches from Fort Lauderdale, you can see it, but you cannot hear it.

Why would there be a "report" of debris found? I'd guess the military would recover any debris, and I doubt they'd feel it necessary to report it.

If you google up Skjervoy and the surrounding areas, you will see there isn't much there. There are a couple of other islands with a little structure on a neighboring island, but this is the largest town in the area, and the only and furthest northerly town with an actual road going to it. There is nowhere to film it from the north at all. It's somewhat curious it did not get filmed in other locations.... but perhaps not. Early morning, there were probably not a whole lot of people to even see this.

Consider how long the Phoenix light flares hung out over the city, and there was only one definitive video. Two in total, I think. Population of Phoenix is 1.5 million (when the event occurred). I am honestly surprised as many videos were taken as there were for this event.

As far as validity, it doesn't matter, does it. If no one claims responsibility, it's clearly an alien event. If Russia or some other country says "Our bad.. that was us," you call them liars, and it's clearly an alien event. No win situation there. Why even list this, when it's obvious you won't believe any official word of the event?

What's so confusing about the spiral? If a rocket is spinning on it's axis, at a set rate, and moving forward at a set rate, I would think that would be *exactly* what would happen. If the wobble was so bad that it caused the rocket to be unstable, I'd imagine it would just go down, and you'd not see this pattern at all.

Why are you assuming it exploded? I may have come down completely intact, and recovered. Who is going to recover debris in the northernmost barrens of Norway? Fishing boats? It probably ended up in the sea. You know.. sort of the reason they do these tests there.

Finally, you are being tricked by an optical illusion. The spiral does NOT turn. It only expands. You can see this if you watch it with that in mind. Finally, the obvious launch trail is clearly visible. It looks just as many other rocket launch trails do.

It would be cool if it were something else, but all aspects of this mesh and make sense being a rocket launch. Location, reports from Russia, other video of similar events, rocket trail, you name it.

Thank you for posting what I wanted to say!

Its a rocket gone wrong in the high altitude.

Nothing else.

posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 07:01 AM

The pattern formed is because of an open camera shutter, it will smooth everything out. Hence, perfect spiral rings.

To take a perfect and detailed open shutter picture, one would need a sturdy tripod. So, are you saying that ALL of the people that took pictures of this spiral were also ALL using tripod's at the time? On the contrary, when one is using an open shutter, hence a long exposure, the slightest movement would askew the picture and render it out of focus or out of balance for lack of a better word.

You attempt at debunking is not a very good one. I say BULL......this was no failed missile. What we are looking at is either from a HAARP type experiment or possibly something like project Bluebeam.

Next.....

new topics

top topics

67